Starting next season assuming a healthy Hayward and further development out of Brown and Tatum the Cs have the talent to be a championship level team. The issue is that the Warriors have raised the bar on winning a championship.

Anthony Davis dreams aside I think the Cs will be in a position to ride things out and let the Warriors age themselves for a few seasons.

As for the Superstar debate I 100% believe that Irving can be the best player on a championship team. Look at the 2014 Spurs their best player that year was Tony Parker. They still had Tim Duncan but at that point he was 37 years old and they had Leonard but he was a 22 year old 13ppg player.

Rockets haven't won anything yet. "Superstar" thing can be taken out of context. You have perennial losers like Chris Paul, Blake Griffin and James Harden who haven't even reached the Finals.

There's no guarantee you will win with superstars either. Talent, chemistry and luck comes all together to build a championship team. We have seen a collection of talents that didn't mesh well because of poor chemistry.

To be fair James Harden has played in the Finals when he was in OKC. They then let him go and they didn't get back to the Finals without him, so maybe he was more important to that team then people want to admit. Harden also led the Rockets back from 3-1 down to make the WCF (they lost to GS). He has also been in the playoffs every single season he has been in the league (something very few players ever can claim after 8 full seasons). Harden has obviously had some very poor showings in the playoffs, but he has also played like a man possessed at times as well.

Rockets haven't won anything yet. "Superstar" thing can be taken out of context. You have perennial losers like Chris Paul, Blake Griffin and James Harden who haven't even reached the Finals.

There's no guarantee you will win with superstars either. Talent, chemistry and luck comes all together to build a championship team. We have seen a collection of talents that didn't mesh well because of poor chemistry.

To be fair James Harden has played in the Finals when he was in OKC. They then let him go and they didn't get back to the Finals without him, so maybe he was more important to that team then people want to admit. Harden also led the Rockets back from 3-1 down to make the WCF (they lost to GS). He has also been in the playoffs every single season he has been in the league (something very few players ever can claim after 8 full seasons). Harden has obviously had some very poor showings in the playoffs, but he has also played like a man possessed at times as well.

Yeah, I never really understand all these people saying Harden is overrated and a "loser".

Yes, I too get frustrated when he plays against us and flops like 20 times a game, but the guy is definitely talented and is an MVP front runner for a reason right now. He probably could have had 2 more MVPs by now but Curry and Westbrook had better stats/seasons/accolades than Harden in those particular years.

And Harden's defense is still pretty mediocre, but it's actually improved from like 2-3 years ago. Sort of like Kyrie who isn't great at defense but has elevated his impact there as a whole (though I'd consider Kyrie a slightly better defender/disrupter on defense than Harden for sure, even despite the rough stretch the C's had lately).

Kyrie can be that superstar guy. He has already won a championship. But he still needs more talent around him. You need a minimum of a big 3 to contend. Kyrie plus Horford isn't enough to get to the next level.

Fortunately, we will get Hayward back next year. Plus if we make a big trade and add a Kawhi Leonard or an Anthony Davis, we get instantly vaulted into contender status with as talented a big 4 as you will see in this league.

Starting next season assuming a healthy Hayward and further development out of Brown and Tatum the Cs have the talent to be a championship level team. The issue is that the Warriors have raised the bar on winning a championship.

Anthony Davis dreams aside I think the Cs will be in a position to ride things out and let the Warriors age themselves for a few seasons.

As for the Superstar debate I 100% believe that Irving can be the best player on a championship team. Look at the 2014 Spurs their best player that year was Tony Parker. They still had Tim Duncan but at that point he was 37 years old and they had Leonard but he was a 22 year old 13ppg player.

I think you were trying to make the point that by then, GSW will be old and the C's will still be in their primes. Unfortunately, I don't think that is very convincing. Take Iggy out and the GSW are still in their primes in two years. Therefore I interpret this as they continue to dominate for the next 3 years.

Kyrie can be that superstar guy. He has already won a championship. But he still needs more talent around him. You need a minimum of a big 3 to contend. Kyrie plus Horford isn't enough to get to the next level.

Fortunately, we will get Hayward back next year. Plus if we make a big trade and add a Kawhi Leonard or an Anthony Davis, we get instantly vaulted into contender status with as talented a big 4 as you will see in this league.

It would be a matter of how Ainge rounds out this bench, if you assume multiple guys leave in FA or get traded to acquire said star player.

Its a semantics issue. Is a superstar a top 5, 10, 15, 25 or 50 player?

I think a superstar is a top 5 player. Otherwise, what rank is in between superstar and MVP? So no, Kyrie isn't a superstar under this definition. Change the definition and Kyrie can be whatever you want him to be.

In this Golden State era, Kyrie is good enough to be the best player on a championship team, but only if that team is stacked with 4+ other top 50 players, in my opinion.

Do championship teams make superstars, or do superstars make championship teams?

Depends. Curry became a superstar because of championship. Lebron and huge stat guys are already deemed superstars, but they don't guarantee champioships. Being the best player in the world does that for a team.

It is arbitrary. The league is marketing players. 'Stars' just is a label for great players. Superstar is isolating out the best of the best. The formula isn't we need superstars. The best combination of players is a general idea. The superstar win rings narrative makes sense, especially since the media and league want them in the big games (revenue booster). It is hiding the teams like the 2014 Spurs, 2008 Celtics, 2004 Pistons. These teams had all-stars, but not the best players in the league. All-star is just another name for success full player. Overall, superstar or stars and championship end up hand in hand because you need talented players

It is arbitrary. The league is marketing players. 'Stars' just is a label for great players. Superstar is isolating out the best of the best. The formula isn't we need superstars. The best combination of players is a general idea. The superstar win rings narrative makes sense, especially since the media and league want them in the big games (revenue booster). It is hiding the teams like the 2014 Spurs, 2008 Celtics, 2004 Pistons. These teams had all-stars, but not the best players in the league. All-star is just another name for success full player. Overall, superstar or stars and championship end up hand in hand because you need talented players

The 2008 Celtics absolutely had some of the best players in the league. Garnett was top five (at worst) at the time. Pierce was in his prime. Ray was a lethal SG.

So did the 2014 Spurs. I think people forget just how dominant Duncan was even at that point. You can make a legitimate argument he was still a top five player in the league even at that stage of his career, and he certainly dominated those finals (should have been Finals MVP; no disrespect to Kawhi).

The 2004 Pistons may not have had any "superstars," but to pretend that that team wasn't absolutely loaded (Sheed, Big Ben, Billups, Hamilton, Prince and a deep bench) is hyperbolic.

First off, I agree with the posters above that yes, superstar is an arbitrary term, but that doesn't change the narrative that's put out there, and I tend to believe that it's true that superstars win in this league.

It's not impossible, as the 2004 Pistons showed us, but the odds are low of winning a championship without one.

It's probably why Ainge took a look in the mirror and made all the moves he did. Not just trading Isaiah, but basically creating a whole new, deep roster with 4 returning guys. I think the Celtics FB Page even posted an article saying "Superstars win in this league, and Kyrie is one".

Again, I think Kyrie can become a superstar in the coming years, but right now, he's just close to being one (legitimate all-star, fringe superstar). I still love him though and enjoy watching him play.